"banned the word "faggot" from the Pogues' song&#33

[Matt]

BBC Radio 1 has banned the word "faggot" from the Pogues' 1987 Christmas hit Fairytale of New York to avoid offence.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7149525.stm

 

 

There really is no need for that! :wacko:

 

What are you guys' thoughts?

 

Edited December 18, 2007 by Matt

[Hylas]

yar.

 

I've never heard the song, but banning something from common speech only encourages its use.

[Benji]

yar.

 

I've never heard the song, but banning something from common speech only encourages its use.

 

 

......I have mixed feelings on that, though I have never heard the song, I have heard other derogatory words in songs that I find offensive....so on one hand you have freedom of speech and on the other you have offending someone.... If I don't like something I change channels.

[Drewbie]

I don't believe people should ban words, plus like what Hylas said it just makes people want to say it more. and faggot does have other means, hear lot people use it also for being weak and in other places fag also means a cigarette or a twig etc.

[pitchan]

OMG! They are restricting creativeness!

Ahem. Im a HUGE Pogues fan, and 'Fairytale of New York' is one of my favourite songs. I mean, its GENIUS. The Pogues essentially CREATED the celtic punk genre. They never cared about general opinion. And the word faggot in that song isnt used in a deragatory word towards actual gays. Its used more as a general insult. Its a all time Christmas favourite! Hmpph.

 

Here is the part of song the word is used:

You're a bum

You're a punk

You're an old slut on junk

Lying there almost dead on a drip in that bed

You scumbag, you maggot

You cheap lousy faggot

Happy Christmas your arse

I pray God it's our last

 

They might as well ban the whole song.

As one comment in the link Matt posted said:

No! It's a cracking tune about two people having a blazing row at Christmas. They're meant to be offending each other!

Edited December 18, 2007 by pitchan

[FrenchCanadian]

I don't think the banning of words do any good. Yes, sometimes word can be offensive. but one can use offensive words like "fag" in kind setting. As long as you don't use them to insult someone it's alright.

 

also it does get against the creativity or authors.

[Dalmatia]

Lol this is funny, I've been wondering if they were going to ban it or soemthing when I first heard it a couple of days ago. I dont feel that it needs to be band but I guess soem people do

[Red_A]

I am reminded by two stories which illustrate the idiocy of this ban.

 

I was brought up in a time and place where Spaz or spastic was a derogative term of the worst kind. Ian Dury was a cripple who exhibited spastic characteristics. He had to have a stick not to help get around but to stem the tremors. He wrote "Spasticus Autisticus" which was banned by the BBC. In reality it was a crusade to change people attitude to the disabled. Aunty BBC got it wrong.

 

The devil and a bailiff were going along together and the bailiff asked why the devil did not take a child when its mother said "may the devil take you" the answer was because it was not from the heart.

 

The song was written about a drunken Irish couple exchanging insults on Christmas Day. There was no intent or hatred in slut or faggot

[Graeme]

Political correctness gone too far

 

As others have said, the "offensive" word, in context, is clearly not an attack on homosexuals. Some people may argue that using it as an insult denigrates gays even if they aren't the target, but it can also be argued that using the word where it clearly isn't applicable to gays weakens the insulting ability of the word against gays.

 

As a side point, the first time I heard the word "faggot" was also in a song (the word is only just starting to arrive in Australia as an insulting term for male homosexuals. When I grew up, the appropriate insult was "poof" or "poofter"). It is still played regularly on the radio stations here, and (I suspect) around the world: Dire Strait's Money for Nothing.

[Graeme]

BBC reverses decision to censor The Pogues

 

Common sense sometimes wins.....

[FrenchCanadian]

BBC reverses decision to censor The Pogues

 

Common sense sometimes wins.....

 

ya, sometimes it wins, in all this, the BBC lost a little of its credibility and "The Pogues" won some free publicity

[pitchan]

BBC reverses decision to censor The Pogues

 

Common sense sometimes wins.....

 

Good. Nothing against BBC, but they went overboard with the censoring issue.

[Matt]

Just seen that too - Guess they had a few complaints

[Conner]

I'm quite disappointed that the BBC radio 1 reversed itself. If you're going to take a stand on moral grounds, then stick with it. They just lost all credibility in my eyes. Their new motto should be "We here at BBC 1 have moral standards....subject to public opinion, that is."

 

So some of you are saying that use of the word "faggot" in the context of this song is part of the creative process? Really?

 

Some of you are saying that use of the word "faggot" in the context of this song isn't an insult to homosexuals. Really?

 

Aren't the Emperor's clothes lovely.

 

Conner

[Benji]

I'm quite disappointed that the BBC radio 1 reversed itself. If you're going to take a stand on moral grounds, then stick with it. They just lost all credibility in my eyes. Their new motto should be "We here at BBC 1 have moral standards....subject to public opinion, that is."

 

So some of you are saying that use of the word "faggot" in the context of this song is part of the creative process? Really?

 

Some of you are saying that use of the word "faggot" in the context of this song isn't an insult to homosexuals. Really?

 

Aren't the Emperor's clothes lovely.

 

Conner

 

 

.......Either way the word remains the same

Edited December 19, 2007 by Benji

[dkstories]

I'm quite disappointed that the BBC radio 1 reversed itself. If you're going to take a stand on moral grounds, then stick with it. They just lost all credibility in my eyes. Their new motto should be "We here at BBC 1 have moral standards....subject to public opinion, that is."

 

So some of you are saying that use of the word "faggot" in the context of this song is part of the creative process? Really?

 

Some of you are saying that use of the word "faggot" in the context of this song isn't an insult to homosexuals. Really?

 

Aren't the Emperor's clothes lovely.

 

Conner

 

I'm sorry Conner, but in this case the BBC is showing something called wisdom. Sticking to a wrong decision just because it is your decision is stupidity of the kind that gets...well that would be a political statement so I'll leave it right there.

 

[Graeme]

So some of you are saying that use of the word "faggot" in the context of this song is part of the creative process? Really?

 

Some of you are saying that use of the word "faggot" in the context of this song isn't an insult to homosexuals. Really?

Words can change their meaning, and it is through common use that they do so. For example, "faggot" is a piece of wood. "gay" is an emotional state of happiness. At least those were earlier meanings of the words. "gay" is going through another change at the moment where it means "uncool" to today's youth (That's so gay!). While we are in the interim period where a lot of gay guys take that saying (That's so gay!) to be insulting to them personally, it is not intended that way by the majority of users. It does create an unfortunate link between homosexuality and being uncool, but the more it is used in the later sense, the less it mean the former.

 

I'm not condoning the use of these words as insults, but I'm pointing out that they are insults being used that do not imply that the person/object/action in question is homosexual. If this new interpretation of the word takes hold, and if the homosexual community allows the word to be taken away from them, then it loses its power to insult/denigrate homosexuals.

 

I'm putting a simplistic view on the matter, but hopefully people will understand what I'm trying to say.

 

For a more complex treatment of the subject, please see Drake Hunter's essay on the power of words.

[AFriendlyFace]

Hmm, I'm pretty ambivalent about the word "faggot". On the one hand I don't particularly have a problem with the word "fag" at all, but "faggot" ticks me off big time

 

Basically though, I'd be fine with the word used in a neutral way to describe gay people. Such as from some rude/ignorant/blunt person who simply says:

 

"I know a faggot from Portland" (or some equally neutral statement)

 

Actually it's very similar to how Jack Nicholson introduced Helen Hunt ('the waitress') and Greg Kinnear ('the faggot'). rude, and politically incorrect, but not indicative of any actual hatred. \

 

Similarly someone could use the generally preferred term "gay" in such a way that it drips malevolence.

 

Anyway, the point is that just because someone uses the word "faggot" or the word "gay" doesn't necessarily represent there true inner feelings on homosexuality. It may, or it may simply represent how willing they are to be politically correct (which largely is irrelevant if the underlying feelings aren't there).

 

To me this argument actually seems to parallel a much different debate: that about the use of the word "gay" to ssdescribe any generic bad thing or event. With regards to that matter I generally dislike it and wouldn't use it in that way myself, but I don't take offense at all when people do, mostly because so many gay people that I know do it, that the word in that context does seem to have become completely divorced from homosexuality.

 

This case seems to be similar, however much more extreme. In this case, since I already don't personally care for the use of the word "gay" to describe slightly bad things, and since I absolutely hate the word "faggot" - yes, I would have cringed at the use of the word in that song. I would have preferred that it not have been there. However, I probably wouldn't have been significantly irritated enough to avoid the song entirely (assuming I was enjoying the piece in general), and I would have taken the context into consideration.

 

So what I'm saying is I wouldn't have censored it in the first place. However...

 

I'm quite disappointed that the BBC radio 1 reversed itself. If you're going to take a stand on moral grounds, then stick with it. They just lost all credibility in my eyes. Their new motto should be "We here at BBC 1 have moral standards....subject to public opinion, that is."

I quite agree with Conner on this point. I think the BBC did send a bad message by reversing itself, much worse than if they'd simply left things alone in the first place or stuck to their original decision.

 

Yes, it's stupid to stick by something that is a mistake, however, I don't think there decision was a mistake. Surely the reasons for which they did it originally still existed. Furthermore, I think the whole thing was so borderline in the first place that there really isn't a "right" or "wrong" course of action. I'd have been equally disappointed if someone had protested the use of the word, they had refused to take it out, and then had subsequently caved in.

 

Yes, it's important to remain open to new information, and to change courses as the circumstances dictate. Foolhardy stubbornness is nothing but that: foolhardy. However, in cases where there simply isn't a clear correct course of action, the important thing, in my opinion, is to present a consistent, confident, firm front.

 

Just my thoughts,

Kevin

[Conner]

I'm sorry Conner, but in this case the BBC is showing something called wisdom. Sticking to a wrong decision just because it is your decision is stupidity of the kind that gets...well that would be a political statement so I'll leave it right there.

 

 

Wisdom, like many other things, is in the eye of the beholder. I agree that playing a censored version of the song was a poor decision on the part of BBC 1. If they were truly interested in being a principle-centered broadcaster, their decision should have been not to play the song at all.

 

Had they done that, then the following question begs an answer, "Does being a public corpoation disqualify the BBC from making principle-centered decisions? I have no difficulty what so ever in BBC 1 being called to task on such a decision.

 

Conner

[JamesSavik]

What about other offensive words? the N word? Kike? Honkie? Whop? Spic? Rican? Wetback? Guido? White-bread? Doush-bag? Dingle-berry? Scatologist? Twirp? the K word? Drunken Paddie?

 

In for a penny, in for a pound I would think... and probably why the BBC backed off.

[Conner]

What about other offensive words? the N word? Kike? Honkie? Whop? Spic? Rican? Wetback? Guido? White-bread? Doush-bag? Dingle-berry? Scatologist? Twirp? the K word? Drunken Paddie?

 

In for a penny, in for a pound I would think... and probably why the BBC backed off.

 

I agree. There are a lot of words out there in public use that offend someone, somwhere. Censorship is not the answer. I know that. It's always been a double edged sword anyway. If I can censor others, others can censor me. Frankly, I'm not going on about censorship. I believe in freedom of speech. I wouldn't touch it if I could. With censorship, we'd all be "tip-toeing through the tulips." It may be peaceful, but it'll definitely be boring to say the least.

 

Where does that leave us? One step might be to grow a thicker shin and develop come-back lines. I believe many of us have done that.

 

What I don't want to see is gay men developing a complacency around words that are derogatory to us. The word "faggot" is derogatory to gay men no matter what context in which it is used. So let's not go off on imaginary tangents such as "artistic freedom". Yes, they can say it, they can sing it, they can sky-write it. But let's not pretend it's artistic. Let's not pretend it's anything more than what it is....and that's vulgarity. Now, vulgarity sells. I know that too. Gratuitous vulgarity sells even better because that way we can pretend that the vulgarity is directed somewhere else and not at us. That's the stuff rose-coloured glasses are made of.

 

If we were to take offence to it, we might actually have to stand up and say something.

 

Then again, maybe I need to take a chill pill.

 

Conner

[Drewbie]

I agree. There are a lot of words out there in public use that offend someone, somwhere. Censorship is not the answer. I know that. It's always been a double edged sword anyway. If I can censor others, others can censor me. Frankly, I'm not going on about censorship. I believe in freedom of speech. I wouldn't touch it if I could. With censorship, we'd all be "tip-toeing through the tulips." It may be peaceful, but it'll definitely be boring to say the least.

 

Where does that leave us? One step might be to grow a thicker shin and develop come-back lines. I believe many of us have done that.

 

What I don't want to see is gay men developing a complacency around words that are derogatory to us. The word "faggot" is derogatory to gay men no matter what context in which it is used. So let's not go off on imaginary tangents such as "artistic freedom". Yes, they can say it, they can sing it, they can sky-write it. But let's not pretend it's artistic. Let's not pretend it's anything more than what it is....and that's vulgarity. Now, vulgarity sells. I know that too. Gratuitous vulgarity sells even better because that way we can pretend that the vulgarity is directed somewhere else and not at us. That's the stuff rose-coloured glasses are made of.

 

If we were to take offence to it, we might actually have to stand up and say something.

 

Then again, maybe I need to take a chill pill.

 

Conner

 

What pisses me off enough is that whenever a person gets offended, they want it banned it isn't the way to go, just change the channel then, sometimes when taking out words out of songs and what not it can ruin the song. what most groups or a single person doesn't get that fcc's won't fine a radio show or a tv show for saying something offensive. I don't believe there are topics that should be censored for comedy, comedy isn't supposed to be this really nice thing it can be both. With most things I dislike political correctness.

[Dalmatia]

Faggot is a food, its meaty and covered in gravy, I like to eat it with peas and mash potatoes....

[Benji]

Faggot is a food, its meaty and covered in gravy, I like to eat it with peas and mash potatoes....

 

 

............Okay!!!

[Dalmatia]

It's true! Matt back me up here!